Good topic. I'll post some cursory responses to get the ball rolling; hopefully it will generate some more debate. But first, I should probably once again make clear my stance on pacifism as a
Christian perspective (not that any other pacifism is somehow diminished, just that my arguments might have some points of departure). I see a separation between church and state as essential and necessary to the health of both. It is exactly at those points in history when the Church (as an institution, not necessarily the individuals of which it is composed) got too involved in politics that we see the major blemishes, both internal and external.
War is a political tool aimed at securing some objective by force. Ideally, this tool is implemented when other, less risky, tools have proved useless. War is a sad symptom and disease of the corruption of humanity, especially as it concerns the abuse of inequalities in power. Christ commanded us to love one another, even to the point of emulating His relationship to the Trinity: that reason for which we were intentionally created. So, to a Christian who is expectedno matter what their denominational backgroundto emulate Christ, participation in the exercise of power over one another should at least be suspect and only undertaken out of great necessity (if at all) and then only with the grief-filled understanding that the action is an offense not only to our call as Christians, but also a departure from our created intent.
Nations/states are political organizations formed for the protection of common interests. Rousseau noted that constituents of these political organizations voluntarily submit themselves to the power of the nation/state in exchange for the benefits accorded to members of the society. We have the happy situation of living in a nation that allows us as constituents to be a part of the process of identifying what those benefits will be and how they will be distributed. Further, we are not required to participate fully in the process to receive benefits. As the world in which we live is composed of other nation/states that also desire to exercise whatever power they have at their disposal, it is sometimes politically expedient for the nation in which we live to also engage in war for our protection against others who might want to take what we have.
For American Christians this means that, unlike some historical situations where Christians might find their faith-based perspective at odds with an unfriendly regime, we have the opportunity to exercise a moral objection to participation in war while still benefiting from the protection such a war might conceivably provide. We are also obligated, as individual citizens of the nation, to elect representation that best represent our viewpoints.
To this point, my construction has been fairly one-dimensional. It is very true that from the third century on, there have been equally respected traditions in the Church on both sides of the issue. Aquinas developed a systematic apology for the way in which it might be acceptable for Christians to participate in war (developed into the Just War theory), yet at the heart of his explanation also lies the idea that war is not something to be undertaken lightly, and then as righteously merciful as possible.
Even for Christians who affirm Just War theory, an action such as Afghanistan is untenable because it was a retaliatory response. In that sense, Iraq is a acceptable action because it better fits the criteria (though not fully, I remain unconvinced that diplomatic channels were exhausted): a righteous cause, a good chance of winning, a good chance to complete objectives without the loss of innocent or unnecessary life, and not an action undertaken out of pride or lust of power.
In a secular political sense, however, Afghanistan makes more sense. To some extent, people understand a show of force as a deterrent. If you annihilate the kid who takes a swing at you, the other bullies on the playground leave you alone.
Finally, to get to the question at hand, a Christian perspective that takes into account the history of pacifism is not concerned with life as it is in our fallen world (as LOYAL AG so eloquently noted on B&P yesterday), but is idealistic in a very real sense of the word in that we understand that Christs salvific work is not limited in some Manicheastic sense to our spirituality, but also to our physical world; it is literally a transformative event. To live in Christs kingdom, then, is to participate in a transformed world that is often at odds with the fallen one. Witeness how those saints have done so throughout history have also had the distinction many times of dying for their troubles.
So, to the assertion that:
Pacifism failed, the Vatican failed. Most of the critics of force did nothing that stopped it.
I must answer that spiritually grounded pacifism
cannot fail because it is literally participation in the unity of the Trinity with our fellow human beings. It is quite possible that we have failed pacifism or have failed to be faithful enough to convince God to intervene as at Sodom and Gomorrah, or perhaps looking at the situation from such a broad perspective allows us to miss out on the individual triumphs of pacifism.
He was of the view that literally without the American armies from the West, the Russians from the East using military force not diplomacy --- the Holocaust would have gone right on until every Jew was dead.
And as political organizations outside of Gods covenant, probably merited grace for such an action as we see demonstrated in the OT.
It made one think strongly about the current confrontation with Islamofascism. What lesson is to be drawn from this? I may post this on B&P, as there it has different answers, but his point was sobering and almost obvious.
It was not unarmed Christians or demonstrations and courts that stopped the Holocaust and fascism. Only direct over-the-top militarism.
What does this suggest idealism's role is today? What are the limits?
To return more to the thread's query then, what role does pacifism have? Does it even work? It would have doomed the Jews it appears.
There is certainly the danger of over-simplifying the matter, and I dont wish to do so here. Christ also tells us that he is love; that the greatest love a man can have is to lay down his life for his friends; and that he who saves his life will lose it, but he who lays down his life for the sake of Christ will save it. Clearly, for a Christian this becomes an intimately spiritual decision. Christs laying down of life certainly wasnt militaristic, it was defiant: he refused to play along with the system and give Pilate a reason not to crucify him. Yet, as we know from the story of His Passion, even that act of submission was powerfully
different enough to change the life of one of His executioners, the centurion John who stood at the foot of the cross and worshiped Christs sacrifice as did Mary Magdelene, the Theotokos, and the Apostle John.
To turn the question a bit, pacifism didnt/wouldnt have doomed the Jews, men working evil did. I have no disillusions or delusions of grandeur about pacifism, but I do know that it is the maximalist position to which we are called, and rationalizing participation in the prosecution of war amounts to a lack of faith that God will use my faithfulness to His purpose.
